The shell middens Teviec and Hoedic are located on what are now small
islands in the Bay of Quiberon in Brittany, off the Atlantic coast of
northwest France. An abundant microlithic industry and a single
radiocarbon estimate places them in the late Mesolithic. The sites are
best known for their evidence of elaborate burial practices, with stone
and red-deer antler structures, evidence for ceremonial burning and
feasting, and abundant and varied grave goods. Together they constitute
some two-thirds of known French Mesolithic burials. Teviec and Hoedic
are critical to our understanding of the late Mesolithic and the
transition to the Neolithic. The sites are part of the phenomenon of
increasing 'complexity' in the late Mesolithic of northwest
Europe; they also fill a geographical gap between the cemeteries of
south-central Portugal and those of southern Scandinavia.

While the importance of Teviec and Hoedic has long been recognized,
there has been little further analysis since their discovery and
excavation in the earlier part of this century (Taborin 1974 is a
notable exception). Yet opinions about the sites are frequently
presented, especially in publications dealing with the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the origins of the megalithic tombs
of Brittany in particular and of western Europe in general (e.g. Bender
1985; 1986; Boujot & Cassen 1993; Chapman 1981; Clark & Neeley
1987; Hibbs 1983; Mohen 1990; Newell 1984; Newell &
Constandse-Westermann 1988; Patton 1993; Renfrew 1976; Sherratt 1990;
Thomas & Tilley 1993). The intent of this paper is to present a more
thorough analysis of mortuary variability at Teviec and Hoedic,
examining the differences between them, as well as the similarities.

Site context

Teviec and Hoedic were excavated by M. Pequart and S.-J. Pequart in
the late 1920s and early 1930s. It is due to the high quality of their
excavation reports, excellent for the time, that the present re-analysis
is possible. Nevertheless, some of the statements and identifications
contained in the reports should be viewed with caution.

Teviec and Hoedic are roughly contemporaneous, based on similarities
in tool typology and burial practices (Pequart et al. 1937; Pequart
& Pequart 1954; Rozoy 1978). A single radiocarbon determination on
charcoal from a hearth in the lower part of the midden at Hoedic
provides an estimate of 6575+350 b.p. (Gif-227) (Delibrias et al. 1966;
Patton (1993: 39) calibrates the date to 5500-5110 BC). The burials
themselves remain undated. The large standard error of this date limits
its usefulness; at two standard deviations it overlaps dates for Breton
early Neolithic passage-graves and long mounds at c. 5700 b.p. No
stratigraphic breaks were noted within the Mesolithic levels at either
site, and the materials recovered were described as homogeneous
throughout the 0.5 to 1.0 m of deposits. Neolithic deposits were
encountered at Hoedic, but the 0.3 to 0.5 m of Mesolithic deposits were
apparently entirely sealed by a layer of sterile gravel (Pequart &
Pequart 1954: 10-12).

Unfortunately, the rise in sea-levels from Atlantic times means that
the sites must be looked at in isolation (cf. Hibbs 1983: 274); the
now-submerged coastal plain on which they were high points was
undoubtedly the focus of Mesolithic settlement in the area. Additional
Mesolithic sites in Brittany include both shell-midden sites
(Beg-er-Vil, Point St-Gildas, Anse du Sud, La Torche) and many more
non-shell-midden sites (e.g. Kerhillio, Kerjouanno, Malvant, Porz Carn,
La Girardiere, Ty Lann, Ty Nancien) (Rozoy 1978: 818-20). With a 10-m
drop in sea level (c. 6000 b.p.) (Ters 1973, cited in Rozoy 1978: 784;
Admiralty Chart 2353, Presqu'Ile de Quiberon to Croisic 1995),
Teviec becomes attached to the mainland via the Quiberon peninsula,
while Hoedic joins with the island of Houat as well as a number of
smaller islets [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. This would leave
Teviec and Hoedic between i and 2 km from the shore at the time of their
occupation - much depends on a more precise estimate of the date of
occupation. The destroyed shell-midden at Point St-Gildas appears to
have been roughly the same distance from the shore during its occupation
early in the Atlantic period (Rozoy 1978: 819), while Beg-er-Vil was
likely somewhat closer to the coast. That such large shell-middens are
found so far inland strongly suggests the presence of much larger sites
closer to the coast.

Faunal remains: seasonality and domestication

The middens in which the burials were encountered contained abundant
remains of shellfish, while boar and red deer dominate the mammalian
fauna. Additional terrestrial mammals include roe deer, beaver,
hedgehog, fox, marten, wild cat, aurochs/cow, sheep/goat, and domestic
dog. Whale remains were found in small numbers at both sites; at Teviec
a whalebone was incorporated into a feature associated with grave A. A
few teeth of a small species of sea! were also reported for Teviec. A
variety of bird species are reportedly present, the most abundant being
duck (Pequart et al. 1937; Pequart & Pequart 1954; see also Rozoy
1978). Despite the lack of sieving, a large number of fish remains were
found, indicating a great range in size of species. Due to the
fragmentary state of the bones only the pharyngeal plates of wrasse were
identified in the original report; these were apparently abundant at
Teviec (Pequart et al. 1937: 102). A large incised fish mandible found
in one of the graves at Teviec may belong to a meagre (Argyrosmus
regium) (Rozoy 1978: 788). Plant remains were represented by carbonized
pear pips and hazelnut shells.

The abundant duck (Anas sp.) remains and the presence of fur-bearers
such as marten (Mustela mattes) suggest winter occupation of Teviec (cf.
Kayser 1986: 71). (Hoedic bird remains are unidentified.) Other species,
such as guillemot (Uria aalge), razorbill (Alca torda) and stork (Cinocia sp.), suggest a spring presence, the season in which most
intensive use of shellfish could also be expected; pear and hazelnut
suggest autumn presence. Thus there are hints of occupation over most of
the year at Teviec, and the possibility of permanent or semi-permanent
occupation presents itself. More formal burial rites would be expected
at such locations rather than at temporary camps.

There is some confusion over the presence of domestic fauna, other
than dog, at the sites. The excavators note the presence of small
Bovidae remains at Hoedic (Pequart & Pequart 1954: 14), and a single
sheep/goat tooth is reported for Teviec (Pequart et al. 1937: 101).

Remains of small cattle are also reported for the more recent (c.
5000 b.p.) site of Beg-an-Dorchenn (Hibbs 1983). In this slight and
uncertain documentation, Bender (1985: 23) sees evidence for early
domestication, while Hibbs (1983: 279) deduces a significant pastoral
element in the economy. There seems to be little basis for either
statement. It is difficult to distinguish female aurochs from domestic
cattle based on limited fragmentary remains, and remains of indigenous
sheep have been suggested for Mesolithic contexts in the west
Mediterranean (Geddes 1985; although see Zilhao 1995). The purported
sheep/goat tooth itself has since been lost (Rozoy 1978). The few bones
of domesticates, if such they are, may be evidence of interaction with
contemporary Neolithic stock-keeping communities (cf. Kayser 1986;
Thomas & Tilley 1993); alternatively, they may represent the hunting
of strays.

Description of the cemeteries and burials

Teviec and Hoedic each occupy an area of only some 200 sq. m; both,
actively eroding prior to excavation, were certainly once larger
(Pequart et al. 1937: 5; Pequart & Pequart 1954: 10) and additional
graves may have been present. At Teviec, the graves were all excavated
partly into the sterile beach deposits on which the site lay, and partly
through overlying midden material. Many were associated with substantial
stone structures, both lining the grave and rising above it to a height
of 0.6-0.8 m. At Hoedic, the graves lay within bedrock depressions at
the base of the midden. No graves at either site were solely within the
midden deposits, arguing for some degree of contemporaneity in their use
for burial, followed by a period in which they were used for non-burial
activities. Possibly these later activities were still associated with
funerary practices, although it is difficult to envisage such continuity
at Hoedic since the burial features would not have been visible for at
least part of this time. On the other hand, wooden structures may have
marked the graves - post-holes can be difficult to identify in
shell-middens.

The 10 graves found at Teviec held the remains of some 23
individuals. What has been identified as a cenotaph (a grave without a
body) (Pequart et al. 1937: 59) was also present. Seven of the ten
graves contained multiple individuals. A total of nine graves were
recovered from Hoedic, containing 14 individuals (a tenth grave, M, was
assumed to have contained a child based on its size, although no
skeletal remains were preserved). Three graves contained multiple
individuals, while the others each contained one individual. One or two
graves held the remains of a child only, and the others the remains of
adults interred with or without children. The legs of the skeletons
remaining in primary position were generally tightly flexed, and may
have been bound in position (Pequart & Pequart 1954: 49).

In addition to the graves themselves, other features at Teviec
include a series of stone-lined hearths showing varying degrees of
burning [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 2 OMITTED]. Pequart et al. (1937:
19-23) classify these into three types - domestic, feasting, and ritual
- on the basis of size, placement in relation to the graves, and degree
of burning. At least the feasting and ritual hearths appear to have been
involved in activities associated with funerary behaviour. The feasting
hearths are generally associated with the larger graves, the best
example being the close association of Feature 7 with grave D (Pequart
et al. 1937: [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]). These relatively
large (c. 0.8-1-0 m diameter) hearths contain considerable quantities of
calcined bone fragments and charcoal. The ritual hearths also have signs
of burning, but less intense and less prolonged. These
'hearths', which appear to represent light fires made directly
on the covering slabs of the graves, are found over the majority of the
graves. With one exception, the underlying skeletons show no evidence of
burning, again indicating that the fires were light. Pequart et al.
suggest that they were used for the burning of funerary offerings (1937:
32). Invariably they include one or two mandibles of red deer and/or
wild boar - token offerings of the animals killed and consumed during
funerary feasts? The validity of the distinction between these different
types of hearths is certainly open to question, particularly that
between domestic and feasting hearths. At least the ritual hearths
appear clearly defined by the criteria of light burning directly over a
grave and the association with a red deer and/or boar mandible.

These features are less common and less well defined at Hoedic
(Pequart & Pequart 1954: 623). The site plan published for Hoedic
(Pequart & Pequart 1954: [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 42 OMITTED]) does
not identify which grave is which, and it is difficult to reconcile with
the written descriptions of the grave locations in relation to one
another; FIGURE 3 represents Newell & Constandse-Westermann's
(in preparation) efforts at a best approximation.

In the case of the multiple burials at both Teviec and Hoedic, it
appears that the last additions were always found in a largely
articulated state. The skeletal elements of previous interments were in
some cases clearly pushed aside to make room for later interments (in
particular, graves H and K at Teviec). Grave K contained the remains of
a total of six individuals [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 4 OMITTED].
Apparently the ritual hearth associated with this grave was used
repeatedly, as it shows evidence of a greater degree of burning than the
others. The cranium of skeleton 4, underlying the ritual hearth, showed
light traces of burning (Pequart et al. 1937: 23). Presumably it was
subjected to repeated light burning as additional bodies were added to
the grave. More severe burning is evident on the remains of two children
last interred in grave C at Hoedic, where the interpretation is the same
(Pequart & Pequart 1954: 34).

Skeleton 6 in grave K is somewhat unusual. The first interment in
this grave, it remained distinct and separate from the others - it was
not moved aside to make room for later interments. The skeleton, a young
adult male, lay in a stone-lined depression, its skull within a
'box' constructed of stone slabs. The positioning of the hands
crossed on the abdomen is also unique at the site (Pequart et al. 1937:
4951). Fragments of two microlithic projectile points were found
embedded in the 6th and 11th thoracic vertebrae of this individual, with
no signs of healing (Pequart et al. 1937: 52-4, [ILLUSTRATION FOR
FIGURES 23 & 24 OMITTED]). The same individual exhibits a healed
fracture of the mandible. Evidence of violence was also found on a
number of other skeletons at Teviec (Newell et al. 1979: 137).

Alexander Marshack (1972: 348) observed a series of up to 110
intentional markings on two faces and one edge of a child's rib at
Teviec [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 5 OMITTED]. The marks, clearly not
related to defieshing, emphasize the accessibility and use of human
remains after interment. Grave H contained three individuals (two adults
and one child), of which the child was the second interment; some period
of time appears to have elapsed between each successive addition.
Skeleton 1 was the most disturbed, being piled into one corner of the
grave; the remains of the child were also disturbed, but to a lesser
extent. If any articulation remained, it seems strange that an element
would be incised and then replaced with the same individual. Is it
possible that the rib is an isolated element from yet another child?

Grave goods found with the burials at Teviec and Hoedic include flint
implements, utilized quartzite and schist cobbles, bone pins,
'daggers', bi-points (fishing gorges?), and awls, an antler
'baton', antler picks and/or clubs, worked boar tusks,
perforated red-deer teeth and an abundance of perforated marine shells
of various species. The placement of shells around the skeleton in many
cases suggests necklaces, bracelets and headgear (Pequart et al. 1937;
Taborin 1974). There is one example of an engraved mandible from a large
species of fish at Teviec (Pequart et al. 1937: plate XI, no. 7). Red
ochre, found in many graves, tends to be concentrated in the chest area
of the skeletons (Pequart & Pequart 1954: 77).

Mortuary analysis

From the very beginning, Pequart et al. (1937: 62-70) discuss the
possibility of social differentiation, placing the individuals of graves
A and D, together with skeleton 5 in grave K, as elevated in rank above
other individuals at Teviec, and recognizing the adult of grave J as the
richest individual at Hoedic (Pequart & Pequart 1954: 53).
Interestingly, one of the three infants of grave C is also suspected to
be of higher status than the more ordinary children at Teviec; taken at
face value, this would suggest some degree of hereditary status. Clark
& Neeley (1987: 125) seem to concur (see also Patton 1993: 37):

The French sites [referring to Teviec and Hoedic] contain the only
relatively clear-cut indicators of an ascription-based differential in
status that we have found so far.

Thomas & Tilley (1993: 228) see little indication of social
hierarchy. Newell & Constandse-Westermann (1988: 171) agree,
contrasting a group of late Mesolithic cemeteries with recent finds at
Skateholm:

Whereas the grave accoutrement profiles of Moita do Sebastiao,
Hoedic, Teviec and probably Vedbeek-Bogebakken indicate societies based
on earned status, closely following the status dimensions of age and
sex, Skateholm I and Skateholm II largely ignore the former source of
patterning, while the frequencies of the latter are indicative of a
system of ascribed status, possibly based upon social ranking.

Yet, in an earlier publication, Newell (1984: 75) interpreted Teviec
and Hoedic as showing the beginnings of ascribed status. Rozoy (1978:
1167) sees in the French Mesolithic no evidence 'for any structures
[burials or dwellings] richer than others'. Bender (1985: 23; 1986:
24-5), making a distinction between the two sites, sees a slight degree
of social differentiation, more pronounced at Teviec. Given the range of
opinion presented, it is worthwhile examining the evidence from these
two sites in greater detail.

The mortuary ritual presents evidence both for homogeneity and for
variability at the intra-and inter-site levels. At Teviec, the lower
limbs of the skeletons were always flexed, most on their right sides. A
few individuals are described as 'seated'. Where observation
was possible, the hands, with two exceptions, were positioned at the
hips (Pequart et al. 1937: 60-61). Orientation was more variable and
seems to exhibit little correlation with other aspects of mortuary
behaviour. At Hoedic, burials lay on either side, and there was one
example of a seated individual. Greater variability is seen in the
placement of the upper limbs. Orientation was somewhat more patterned at
Hoedic; while their general north-south orientation is conditioned by
the same tendency of the bedrock depressions into which the burials were
placed, the placement of the head where it could be determined was
invariably to the north half of the compass (Pequart & Pequart 1954:
66) which cannot be reduced to the orientation of the depressions. The
use of red ochre is common to both sites, although it appears far less
frequently at Hoedic. Evidence for burning associated with the mortuary
ceremony is seen at both sites; traces of burning on a few skeletons
appear to have resulted not from intentional burning of the body but
from overlying ceremonial fires. Finally, the graves at Teviec appear to
cluster more as a unit, while at Hoedic there are two more isolated
graves.

Age and sex differences

The burial sample from both sites includes adult males and females,
and children of all ages [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 6 AND 7 OMITTED].
There is little indication that any age or sex group is
under-represented relative to a living population (Weiss 1973).

Such distinctions as are visible in mortuary behaviour at both sites
seem to be related partly, although not entirely, to the subordinate
dimensions of age and sex. Two shell species - Trivia europea (cowrie)
and Littorina obtusata (periwinkle) [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
- dominate the burial assemblage, despite the much greater diversity of
locally available species seen in the shell midden and inferred through
a reconstruction of the local environment (Taborin 1974: 158). This in
itself suggests symbolic importance for these particular species - they
are certainly too small to have been of any dietary value. Taborin
(1974) found that pierced T. europea shells were associated with males,
and L. obtusata shells with females. The association is not one of
presence/absence, since nearly equal numbers of males and females are
found with both species. Rather, it is seen in the quantity with which
they are represented, with the distinction seeming to hold for the
various kinds of objects - bracelets, necklaces, and headgear - made of
shell (Taborin 1974: 171). Thus a bracelet on a male would be comprised
of both species, but predominantly T. europea. Taborin also identifies a
tentative trend between age and quantity of shell ornaments; young and
middle-aged adults seem to have been interred with more ornamentation,
while both younger and older individuals exhibited less (1974: 174-7).

Ritual hearths containing deer and/or boar mandibles are found with
all graves at Teviec except for B, C, and L (grave J is too disturbed to
determine whether or not a ritual hearth was in association).
Interestingly, these contained the remains of infants and children (C
and L) and an adolescent (B). By contrast, all the adult graves have
ritual hearths (Pequart et al. 1937: 62). This suggests that meat
feasts, involving red deer and/or boar, were not held for sub-adults at
death, and argues for the absence of hereditary social rank. Yet some
sub-adult burials are found with grave inclusions, and are otherwise
accorded a similar mortuary treatment, one perhaps not available to all
members of the society.

In the following discussion, richness refers simply to the number of
artefact types present (TABLE 1), without taking into account their
abundance (Leonard & Jones 1989). There are both theoretical and
practical reasons for this approach. A number of studies have suggested
that presence/absence is a more sensitive indicator of status than
quantity (Goldstein 1980; Macdonald 1990; O'Shea 1984; Ravesloot
1988; Rothschild 1990; Schulting 1995a). In some cases it was not
possible to associate all the artefacts present in a grave with specific
individuals; the shell beads are sometimes found strewn throughout the
grave, mitigating against the use of absolute quantity of items in the
analysis. But in many cases objects are clearly associated with
individuals, often placed in the hands or on the chest.

Sub-adults show lower artefact richness than the adult group at
Teviec [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 9 OMITTED]; among them are the only
three individuals at the site lacking non-perishable grave inclusions
entirely (with the exception of red ochre). Significance tests (TABLE 2)
quantify and provide more detail on these differences. Adults at Teviec
show significantly greater number of artefact types overall. Breaking
down types into utilitarian and sociotechnic groups (TABLE 1) (Binford
1962; Winters 1968; Schulting 1995b) shows that adults dominate in both,
although in the socio-technic group the difference does not quite reach
the standard 0.05 level of significance. Males and females do not differ
significantly in their overall artefact richness. However, males on
average are interred with over twice as many utilitarian artefact types
as females, and this difference is statistically significant. The
distribution of sociotechnic types, on the other hand, is almost equal
between the sexes. Tests of association show that neither sex is
associated with particular artefact classes, although this may be a
function of small sample size. Within the adult age-group itself, no
significant differences based on age are seen at either site.

In general, the structures at Hoedic appear simpler, lacking the
stone linings and superstructures of Teviec; also in contrast to Teviec,
there appears to be little differentiation of treatment along the
dimensions of age and sex. None of the differences in artefact richness
between age and sex classes attain statistical significance
([ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 10 OMITTED] & TABLE 3). Contrary to what
might be expected, sub-adults actually have a somewhat higher average
incidence - although remaining statistically insignificant - of
utilitarian artefact types. This contrasts not only with Teviec, but
also with other studies of mortuary data from hunter-gatherer societies
(see O'Shea 1984; Schulting 1995a; 1995b). Females on average tend
to have slightly higher artefact richness, due largely to the influences
of two very 'rich' female burials from graves H and J. Only
one male, from grave K, is comparable. No relationship was noted between
grave location within the cemetery and sex, age or artefact richness at
either site.

TABLE 1. Division of artefacts into utilitarian and sociotechnic
categories.

Structures of red-deer antler are associated with two adults (one
male and one female, graves A and D) at Teviec, and with four adults
(two males and two females, graves F, H, J and K) at Hoedic; these
appear to have formed small tent-like arrangements over the heads of
these individuals [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 11 OMITTED]. The hypothesis
that these represent special treatment is an obvious one to make. The
six individuals with antler structures have over twice the average
artefact richness of individuals lacking these structures; this
difference is statistically significant (TABLE 4). If these structures
are indeed associated with hunting, either in reality or symbolically,
it suggests that this was perceived as a high-status activity (agreeing
with the findings of O'Shea & Zvelebil (1984) at the site of
Oleneostrovski Mogilnik, but contra Jacobs (1995)). The stone
superstructures at Teviec appear to be more related to the number of
inviduals in the grave, and show no clear trend in terms of richness
when adjusted for this.

Apart from the nearly ubiquitous shell beads, truncated flint blades
and bone pins form the two most common classes of grave inclusions.
Pequart & Pequart (1954: 68) remark on an interesting difference
between Teviec and Hoedic in the size of the truncated blades found with
the burials. At Hoedic, these blades, which have been interpreted as
knives (Rozoy 1978), are similar in size to specimens found in the
general midden; at Teviec those placed with burials were reportedly
larger than those found in the midden. This suggests that perhaps long
flint blades were being manufactured specifically as grave offerings,
which appears to fit in with an emerging pattern of slightly more
elaborate mortuary practices at Teviec. However, in the published
photographs and drawings of flint blades from Teviec (Pequart et al.
1937), the blades found with the graves do not seem significantly
longer. But the idea that flint blades are associated with high status
does receive [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 4 OMITTED] support from a
comparison of the artefact richness in those graves with blades and
those without (TABLE 4). Furthermore, the frequency of truncated blades
in the graves, approximately equally distributed among adults of both
sexes as well as sub-adults, can be contrasted with their scarcity in
the midden (Rozoy 1978: 783).

The distinctive bone pins, or stylets, also show differences; with
one or two exceptions, those from Teviec are made of wild boar fibulae
while those from Hoedic are made of deer bone (Pequart & Pequart
1954: 69). Three examples, two from Teviec and one from Hoedic, are
decorated with similar patterns of fine incised lines. In many cases the
pins were found placed on the chest in a manner suggesting garment
fasteners [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 12 OMITTED] (Pequart et al. 1937: 67;
Pequart & Pequart 1954: 69). Pequart & Pequart (1954: 69; echoed
by Bender 1985: 22) suggest that they may have been made specifically as
grave offerings, although Pequart et al. (1937: 91) note that some of
the worked bone fragments from the midden deposits at Teviec may be
broken stylets. Again, graves with pins show a strong tendency to be
associated with greater-than-average artefact richness (TABLE 4). The
pins, while not restricted to either sex or age group, are more common
with adults.

Tests of association show a relationship between antler structures,
flint blades and bone pins. Moderate but significant correlations occur
between antler structures and bone pins ([Phi] = 0.45, Fisher's p =
0.009; [Phi] is the equivalent of Pearson's r using only
presence/absence data), and between bone pins and flint blades ([Phi] =
0.56, Fisher's p = 0.003). Only one individual of the six with an
antler structure lacks a bone pin. All this suggests bone garment-pins
were strongly associated with high status at Teviec and Hoedic. It is
likely that the garments worn by these individuals were of superior
quality; clothing is one of the earliest-appearing and most effective
means of communicating differences in status. While flint blades appear
to also have functioned partly as status markers, they show no similar
association with the elaborate antler structures ([Phi] = 0.27,
Fisher's p = 0.184). All of this indicates a number of complex
status roles that cannot simply be reduced to age and sex, or to random
variation. Nor does it seem likely - although this remains a possibility
- that the observed patterning is based solely on achieved forms of
status.

Discussion

Mortuary behaviour at Teviec and Hoedic presents a number of
parallels to that of the Early Neolithic. Thomas & Tilley (1993:
228) remark on the association between feasting, ritual, death, and
burning at the sites and the continuation of these practices into the
Neolithic (see also Hibbs 1983: 310-13). Bender (1986: 25) remarks on
the resemblance of the mortuary structures at Teviec and Hoedic to the
paved area and small cairn at the early Neolithic site of Les
Fouaillages, Guernsey, where Mesolithic flints were recovered from the
surface underlying the cairn (Kinnes 1982). The re-use of graves seen at
Teviec and Hoedic, with earlier interments moved aside to make way for
the new additions, is common to the early Neolithic of both Brittany and
Britain. Bone garment-pins, possibly a special feature of mortuary
rites, are also seen in both Mesolithic and Neolithic contexts. Others
have found parallels between the arrangements of cists, hearths, and
pits in the shell middens of Teviec and Hoedic and the features found
underlying the Neolithic Manio long mound at Carnac (Kirk 1993: 212;
Thomas & Tilley 1993: 239).

Thomas & Tilley (1993: 228) address the oft-remarked dichotomy
between the Neolithic as ritual phenomenon and the Mesolithic as
economic phenomenon. They would have us view the middens of Teviec and
Hoedic as reflecting a conscious decision to 'accumulate rather
than scatter debris over generations' [emphasis in original], and
that they are therefore more than 'simply rubbish heaps'. They
go further (1993: 228):

These shell mounds were obviously foci for large social gatherings
and feasting. They also provided an arena for ritual and the burial of
the dead [emphasis added].

I would argue that the shell middens first and foremost are indeed
rubbish heaps, and not obviously foci for large social gatherings and
feasting - unless by this is meant a habitation site at which such
activities, among others, may have occurred. Any other interpretation
must be supported with additional evidence. The presence of burials does
not itself transform a location into ritual space; this is an
ethnocentric view. And, while we may concede that the act of burial
itself, particularly given the elaborate nature of the Teviec and Hoedic
graves, might dominate how the site was viewed at the time, there is no
reason to believe that this remained its main emphasis at other times.
The duration of occupation of Teviec and Hoedic is unknown (based on its
greater depth of deposits Teviec may have been in use for a longer
period of time). The graves are partly in the lower midden deposits and
partly dug into sterile beach gravels; the sites were used both before
and after burial for what appear to be residential purposes. Recall also
that both sites were eroded when excavated; their original extent is
unknown. The burials may have been at the back of much larger
settlements, as they are in the roughly contemporaneous cemeteries of
Vedbaek-Bogebakken and Skateholm in southern Scandinavia. While it is
possible that the sites did indeed have ritual significance, and that
this was the major focus of activity, this remains to be shown. Every
activity may indeed have a ritual aspect to it, but to call every
activity 'ritual' on this basis is, I believe, to erode the
usefulness of the term. The formation processes behind shell middens
have been observed in many parts of the world - the Northwest Coast of
North America and northern Australia to provide two examples - where
they are indeed habitation sites full stop. And the occurrence of
burials in shell middens is the rule rather than the exception
throughout most of Northwest Coast prehistory.

The burial regimes at Teviec and Hoedic exhibit both similarities and
significant differences (TABLE 5). There is evidence for social
differentiation based on age and sex, and hints of ascribed status
differentiation. The differences between males and females appear to
reflect a horizontal rather than a vertical status dimension. In general
the graves at Teviec appear more elaborate, with a more structured
distribution of grave inclusions. If the admittedly small sample sizes
allow meaningful comparison, then it may be suggested that Teviec shows
more formal patterning and more 'complexity' than Hoedic in
some respects, though not all. The relationship between the two sites
then becomes of interest. There are a number of possibilities. The sites
may both have been larger and contained additional burials, so that
different parts of cemeteries may be represented. Or they may represent
two contemporaneous communities with slightly differing socio-economic
organization. Finally, the difference may reflect diachronic variability. A programme of directly dating human bone from both sites
would be helpful.

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 5 OMITTED]

The Breton shell-midden sites are at the fringe of the late
Mesolithic coastal settlement system; larger, more complex sites would
be expected on the coast itself. In a study of northwest Zealand's
Ertebolle site distribution, Paludan-Muller (1978) found that the zone
1-5 km from the coast displayed relatively little settlement, it being
more efficient to exploit this zone from coastal base camps, with
specialized interior sites further than 5 km inland.

The red-deer antler structures at Teviec and Hoedic are not entirely
unique. There are three adult graves with red-deer antlers at the late
Mesolithic cemetery of Vedbaek-Bogebakken, Denmark (Albrethson &
Brinch Petersen 1976: 26), but with no indication of significant
association with higher than average richness ([Mathematical Expression
Omitted] vs 2.05, t = 0.49, p = 0.63). Comparisons may also be made with
three adult graves at Skateholm II, Scania (Larsson 1989; Persson &
Persson 1988). Finally, a small test excavation at the recently
discovered and roughly contemporaneous site of Beg-er-Vil, located
between Teviec and Hoedic [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED], revealed
an intriguing feature: a pit, surmounted by three antlers and a schist
manuport, contained - in addition to burned bone fragments and stone
tools - an incised shell fragment and two incised bone artefacts (Kayser
& Bernier 1988; Poissonnier & Kayser 1988). One of these, made
on a deer tibia and described as a poignard, bears considerable
resemblance to the bone pins of Teviec and Hoedic [ILLUSTRATION FOR
FIGURE 13 OMITTED]. It is tempting to interpret this feature as a
'structured deposit' of the type seen in the Neolithic.
Comparable features have been found in association with the Mesolithic
cemteries of Skateholm (Larsson 1989).

The use of bone from different species for the pins at the two sites
recalls a similar distinction in tooth ornamentation noted by
O'Shea & Zvelebil (1984: 10) at the large Mesolithic cemetery
site of Oleneostrovski Mogilnik in Karelia, where the distinction was
interpreted as identifying a binary division in society, i.e. along
moiety lines. The boar bone pins from Teviec are easily visually
distinguished from those made of red deer at Hoedic [ILLUSTRATION FOR
FIGURE 13 OMITTED]. While I would certainly not argue on this basis for
a moiety division of society (particularly given the distance between
the sites), the use of different bone garment pins may have been one
means of group identification (cf. Wiessner 1983). Alternatively, it may
reflect availability of raw materials, i.e. boar and red deer. In terms
of habitat, there is no reason to expect such a difference between the
hunting catchments of the two sites; boar is placed first in the species
lists at both sites, which appear to be given in order of abundance
(Pequart et al. 1937: 101; Pequart & Pequart 1954: 19).

An interesting finding is that those graves with antler structures -
all adults - have markedly greater artefact richness than those without
such structures. Bone garment pins and flint blades, both of which may
have been made specifically as grave inclusions, are also associated
with significantly higher than average artefact richness. There is a
moderate positive correlation between antler structures and bone pins,
and between bone pins and flint blades. What do these differences mean?
There do not appear to be any exotic materials in the artefact
assemblage, nor is there evidence for great input of labour into the
manufacture of some items (as there is for the finely polished stone
axes of the early Neolithic). Nevertheless, there is patterning in the
distribution of these items. Pierced marine shells, despite their local
abundance, were clearly distinguished along the dimension of sex
(Taborin 1974). And the more elaborate graves with antler structures
also display significantly greater artefact richness - such patterns
cannot be fortuitous. They are meaningful, even if the full depth of
their meaning remains elusive.

A number of similarities between late Mesolithic mortuary behaviour
at Teviec and Hoedic and early Neolithic mortuary practices of Brittany
and Britain have been noted, but closer comparisons are needed to move
beyond simple statements of 'continuity' or
'discontinuity'. Mortuary analysis undoubtedly has an
important role to play in understanding the Mesolithic-Neolithic
transition, one that is currently under-utilized (cf. Solberg 1989:
284). But it is essential to first come to terms with the range of
variation in mortuary behaviour within the late Mesolithic; this has
been the goal of this paper.

Acknowledgements. A shorter version of this paper was presented at
the From the Jomon to Star Carr conference held at Cambridge/Durham, 4-8
September 1995. I would like to thank the conference organizers, and
especially Simon Kaner, for providing this opportunity. I would also
like to thank Richard Bradley, Robert Chapman, Trinette
Constandse-Westermann, Nyree Finlay, Steve Mithen and Raymond Newell for
their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I am grateful for Newell
& Constandse-Westermann's permission to reproduce FIGURE 3.
Comments by two anonymous ANTIQUITY reviewers are much appreciated. Any
remaining faults are of course my own. Lastly, I would like to
acknowledge the support of the British Office of the Commonwealth
Association and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.

MARSHACK, A. 1972. The roots of civilization. New York (NY):
McGraw-Hill.

MOHEN, J.-P. 1990. The world of megaliths. New York (NY): Facts On
File.

NEWELL, R.R. 1984. On the Mesolithic contribution to the social
evolution of western European society, in J. Bintliff (ed.), European
social evolution: archaeological perspectives: 69-82. Bradford: Bradford
University Press.

NEWELL, R.R. & T.S. CONSTANDSE-WESTERMANN. 1988. The significance
of Skateholm I and Skateholm II to the Mesolithic of western Europe, in
Larsson (ed.): 164-74.

In preparation. The mortuary practices of the Mesolithic societies in
western Europe I: The nine later Mesolithic cemeteries.